3 ms·

It's not a harmless vaccine. You want to mandate vaccinating people who are at no risk from the disease, and expose them to unnecessary risks. And that means ch

It's not a harmless vaccine. You want to mandate vaccinating people who are at no risk from the disease, and expose them to unnecessary risks. And that means children - all to protect sick people who for the most part are already isolated. They are in hospitals or sick people homes, where you can protect them in other ways. Also the comparison with other vaccines does not automatically make sense. All vaccines are not the same. At least in my country, so far recommendations for vaccinations had been "conservative" to only vaccinate against things that seem especially risky. There is a reason why people are not simply being vaccinated against all possible diseases.

ben_bai 5y ago
> At least in my country, so far recommendations for vaccinations had been "conservative" to only vaccinate against things that seem especially risky. Well then good news, COVID-19 is "especially risky".
- kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
  I should have added - risky for the person who might contract the disease. In any case, yes, both disease and vaccination have risks, that should be weighed against each other. Matters are complicated because risks differ among different age groups.
p49k 5y ago
First of all it’s entirely false that it’s just “sick and old” people affected; there are also children and young adults with immune disorders who can live somewhat normal lives today because of minor sacrifices from others such as vaccinations. Secondly, sick and old people are also human beings who deserve consideration. We mandate that people take all kinds of minor risks in life; that’s always been part of being in a society. The reason vaccine advice is conservative is because anti-intellectualism and belief in conspiracy theories has gone off the charts and politicians now have to coddle these people. It’s a collective mental illness.
- kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
  There is a nonzero risk to the vaccination. I really don't understand why you consider the plight of the people who can't get vaccinated, and dismiss the plight of the people who die or come down with severe disabilities from the vaccination.
  - p49k 5y ago
    The mental disease of many anti-intellectuals and conspiracy theorists is the inability or refusal to understand scale and proportion; it's the single source of an enormous amount of flawed logic. Scale and proportion is the reason. 7 per 1,000,000 risk of blood clotting if you are a woman between 18-49 (and basically no risk if you're a man or outside that range, or use one of the vaccines that have not shown this risk). This is on the level of shark attacks and getting hit by lightning. Actually getting COVID has more serious risks and a much higher rate of being affected by them. We regularly ask of citizens to do things that have a 7 per 1,000,000 risk of injury; it's a reasonable ask.
    - kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
      Your comparison does not make sense, though. The question is, how many people who are not at risk from the disease do you have to vaccinate, and how many people are there who can not be vaccinated and would contract Covid-19. Let's say with your numbers there are thousands of (young) people who die from the vaccination. How many people who can't be vaccinated would die if those young people would not get the vaccination? What other risky things to we ask citizens to do, exactly? People certainly choose to do other risky things. But how many are mandated?
      - p49k 5y ago
        Even if we're only talking about 18-29, there have been 2,100 deaths from COVID in that age group in the US already. Even in the most generous interpretation, that means that it would be at least 10 times as dangerous for someone in that age group not to get vaccinated than it would to be vaccinated. The numbers are so blatantly obviously in favor of having everyone vaccinated. Anyway, I'm done feeding a troll account created today.

ben_bai 5y ago

> At least in my country, so far recommendations for vaccinations had been "conservative" to only vaccinate against things that seem especially risky. Well then good news, COVID-19 is "especially risky".

kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
I should have added - risky for the person who might contract the disease. In any case, yes, both disease and vaccination have risks, that should be weighed against each other. Matters are complicated because risks differ among different age groups.

p49k 5y ago

First of all it’s entirely false that it’s just “sick and old” people affected; there are also children and young adults with immune disorders who can live somewhat normal lives today because of minor sacrifices from others such as vaccinations. Secondly, sick and old people are also human beings who deserve consideration. We mandate that people take all kinds of minor risks in life; that’s always been part of being in a society. The reason vaccine advice is conservative is because anti-intellectualism and belief in conspiracy theories has gone off the charts and politicians now have to coddle these people. It’s a collective mental illness.

kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
There is a nonzero risk to the vaccination. I really don't understand why you consider the plight of the people who can't get vaccinated, and dismiss the plight of the people who die or come down with severe disabilities from the vaccination.
- p49k 5y ago
  The mental disease of many anti-intellectuals and conspiracy theorists is the inability or refusal to understand scale and proportion; it's the single source of an enormous amount of flawed logic. Scale and proportion is the reason. 7 per 1,000,000 risk of blood clotting if you are a woman between 18-49 (and basically no risk if you're a man or outside that range, or use one of the vaccines that have not shown this risk). This is on the level of shark attacks and getting hit by lightning. Actually getting COVID has more serious risks and a much higher rate of being affected by them. We regularly ask of citizens to do things that have a 7 per 1,000,000 risk of injury; it's a reasonable ask.
  - kofddfjdfdfdff 5y ago
    Your comparison does not make sense, though. The question is, how many people who are not at risk from the disease do you have to vaccinate, and how many people are there who can not be vaccinated and would contract Covid-19. Let's say with your numbers there are thousands of (young) people who die from the vaccination. How many people who can't be vaccinated would die if those young people would not get the vaccination? What other risky things to we ask citizens to do, exactly? People certainly choose to do other risky things. But how many are mandated?
    - p49k 5y ago
      Even if we're only talking about 18-29, there have been 2,100 deaths from COVID in that age group in the US already. Even in the most generous interpretation, that means that it would be at least 10 times as dangerous for someone in that age group not to get vaccinated than it would to be vaccinated. The numbers are so blatantly obviously in favor of having everyone vaccinated. Anyway, I'm done feeding a troll account created today.